Shabbat

Unlocking the Mystery: The Origin and Evolution of the Sabbath and the Sabbath Lights

 

Rabbi Manuel Gold

 

Did you ever wonder where the prohibition against lighting fire on the Sabbath came from? Or why there are so many prohibitions attached to the Sabbath? For a day of rest and rejoicing there are too many confining limitations that seem to interfere with its full celebration.

Where did these limiting prohibitions come from? How did the Sabbath evolve into that day we now know and recognize?

Up until now the origins of the Sabbath and the Sabbath Lights have been shrouded in mystery.

 

The Sabbath has many different meanings for us today.For some it is a day of study, rest and renewal. For others it is a day of joy, celebration and communal prayer. For still others it is a time for Sabbath lights and a rare family meal. Some see it only as a day of prohibitions, others of opportunities.

 

We may wonder if the myriad of Sabbath practices and meanings is foreign to the original spirit of the day? 

 

The Sabbath as we know it is indeed a late development. We would not recognize the early biblical or early rabbinic Sabbaths.

An awareness of the origins and evolution of the Sabbath and its lights can help us better understand the value of the Sabbath in our lives.

 

The Jewish Sabbath

 

How did the Jewish Sabbath begin? 

No satisfactory theory has been proposed until now that explains where the Jewish Sabbath originated. Why are there so many prohibitions attached to the Sabbath? How did the Sabbath lights begin? 

 

The answers to these questions will shed new light on the Sabbath, its origins and its deeper meaning, and also provide us with a remarkable paradigm to help us to understand how Judaism, its holidays and celebrations began, and how and why they evolved, changed and were reinterpreted during the course of time, yet continue to serve as a vibrant form of Jewish expression, identity and values.

 

 

When and why did the Sabbath begin?

 

Some have seen the beginnings of the Sabbath over four thousand years ago, in a pre-biblical Babylonian shapattu (day of the full moon), a day of evil and taboo on which activity was forbidden. Others have defended the originality of the biblical Sabbath by claiming that there is no connection linguistic or otherwise between the Sabbath and shapattu .However, if it “looks like a dduck, and walks like….,” and it is a also a day ofstopping because of a fear of demons, then it is likely related to the Biblical Sabbath.

 

 

What can we discover from a fresh look at the sources?

 

The earliest biblical Sabbath is characterized almost entirely by prohibitions that forbid “work.” The appropriate term for such extensive prohibitions is “taboos.” In all cultures taboos reflect fears of demonic powers and forces. 

 

Jewish sources from a later period (Talmud Pesahim 112b, etc.), which  reflect much earlier traditions, consider Friday night and Saturday night to be particularly dangerous times when demonic spirits roam rampant. Many believed that among the special practices that can protect one from these evil spirits are fire, knots or twisting, braiding, spices, recitation of selected Psalms and the invocation of Elijah who was considered the most potent protector from evil spirits. (Berachot 3b)

 

All these ingredients are present in the Saturday nightHavdalah ceremony. Their original purpose was to protect the participant. Since most of us no longer believe in demons we have, over the centuries, reinterpreted those ceremonies investing them with new more spiritual symbolism. But their origins in ancient Jewish protective magic are clear. Among the protective rituals for Friday night were the Sabbath lights and the more recent braided challah. Again, all have been given new spiritual meanings.

These and other practices indicate the undocumented existence of an ancient, pre-Mosaic taboo seventh day.

 

The oldest meaning of the Hebrew word Shabbat is “to stop, to cease,” and only later does it acquire the added meaning “to rest.” Stopping all activity while remaining at or near home could reduce the danger of an encounter with evil forces.

 

Both versions of the Ten Commandments, when translated more accurately than previously, provide further evidence for a pre-Mosaic seventh day of taboos.

 

All previous translations regard Exodus 20:8-11 and Deuteronomy 5:12-15 as the sources for the Sabbath. The usual translations give us the sense of “keep the Sabbath day from this moment on.” 

 

We have erroneously concluded that the Sabbath began with these commandments. However, when examined carefully, neither source actually states what we have come to expect them to mean. We have imposed our own expectations on these texts. When approached without prejudice they yield a new and more surprising meaning. They do not mean “from now on start observing the Sabbath.”

 

Ex.20:8 reads “Remember (zachor) the Sabbath day…”The word “zachor = remember” does not indicate the introduction of a new practice, but “remember” does indicate the recollection and continuation of a prior practice. That prior practice is clearly the prohibition of work/activity, that constitute the taboos that come form a fear of demonic powers. 

 

Why would clearly pagan taboos be accepted by the biblical authors?

 

This new translation of the Fourth Commandment surprises us only because we don’t expect it. We find it easier to accept the more familiar suggestions that other pagan pre-Mosaic practices found their way into Judaism after having been “detoxified” of their pagan message. These practices include animal and grain sacrifices, the agricultural festivals, indeed all rituals and even the very idea of a divine being. They have all have been transformed by the biblical authors to conform to a non pagan monotheistic ideal. 

 

Maimonides, probably responding to contemporary challenges that Judaism included many pre-Israelite pagan practices which should have been excluded from a religion that claims such high moral monotheistic ground, wrote (Guide of the Perplexed, Part III, Chapter XXXII, trans. M. Friedlander, 1881, pp.150-152):

 

“It is, namely, impossible to go suddenly from one extreme to the other; it is therefore according to the nature of man impossible for him suddenly to discontinue everything to which he has been accustomed… The Israelites were commanded to devote themselves to His service… But the custom which was in those days general among all men, and the general mode of worship in which the Israelites were brought up, consisted in sacrificing animals in those temples which contained certain images, to bow down to (them) and to burn incense before them… (God) did not command us to give up (this) manner of service (which) would have been contrary to the nature of man… God allowed these kinds of service to continue; He transferred to His service that which had formerly served as a worship of…things imaginary and unreal, and commanded us to serve Him in the same manner… By this Divine plan…the traces of idolatry were blotted out, and the truly great principle of our faith, the existence and Unity of God, was firmly established.”

 

This same process of reinterpretation and transformation applies equally to the biblical Sabbath. The Bible tells us to “remember,” that is to continue the taboos of the seventh day, perhaps because there was no possibility of demanding that the Israelites suddenly  abandon their deepest fears. Yet the pagan elements, the demons and evil spirits had to be removed by the biblical authors, and a spiritual reason compatible with monotheism had to be substituted. This is exactly what occurs in the text. A new reason is introduced, “Remember (continue) the Sabbath day (taboos) “to sanctify it”(le’kadsho to make it special, dedicated to the one monotheistic God).” Or it may be read “…to sanctify Him (God).”

 

In the Dt.5:12 version of the Ten Commandments the word “zachor = remember” is replaced by “shamor = observe,” yet it has the same connotation, “(continue) to observe (the taboos)of the Sabbath day, (except from now on it is because) you are to sanctify it, (and not observe it out of fear of demons but rather) because your God has commanded it.” 

 

The texts of both versions of the Fourth Commandment then continue and offer widely divergent additional reasons for the Sabbath in order to shift the motive for observing the Sabbath taboos away from its original fear of demons, to the positive monotheistic divine command that it be sanctified, made special for God. 

 

The Exodus version traces the Sabbath origins to the creation story in Genesis, even though that Sabbath section (Genesis 2:1-3), was not actually a part of the original creation story. 

 

In contrast, the Deuteronomy version traces its origins to the Israelite Exodus from Egypt. 

 

That there are two widely different reasons given for the origin of the Sabbath indicates that the authors of the Bible were attempting each in their different way, to reinterpret the origin by substituting acceptable reasons in place of the unacceptable, fear of demons. 

 

Genesis 2:1-3, which is familiar from the Sabbath prayers, is a later addition to the creation story which originally lacked the Hebrew word shabbat (=stopped), and only contained the word vayechulu (=and they were finished, that is the creation of heaven and earth were finished). 

 

This brief series of verses is an uncharacteristically awkward repetitive construction. It is rare for the biblical authors to repeat consecutively in a prose narrative unless they are trying to make a point. In this case it is that the word vayechulu (=finished) should be understood as synonymous with shabbat (=stopped). This is achieved in four steps: 

 

1) vayechulu (they were finished, Genesis 2:1) = 

2 )vayechal (and He finishes, Genesis 2:2a) = 

3) vayishbot (and He stopped, Genesis 2:2b) = 

4) shavat (He stopped, Genesis 2:3, which is close enough to Shabbat). 

 

In other words 1)”finished” = 4)”stopped.” 

 

Sabbath becomes a Day of Joy

 

Eventually the belief that the Sabbath was not merely a day of cessation from activity but also a day of joy (Isaiah 58:13-14, from the end of the sixth century B.C.E.) and rest began to enrich the meaning of the Sabbath. By continually reinterpreting the meaning of the Sabbath in every age, Judaism has made it a vibrant and symbolic part of the value system which energizes and spiritualizes the Jewish people.

 

 

Where and when did the Sabbath Lights and the prohibition against Fire begin?

 

Previous theories about the origin of the Sabbath lights are unacceptable. They are not a Pharisaic polemic against the Sadducees. 

 

The prohibition of fire on the Sabbath is found in the Bible,. Indeed what is the reason for the mysterious biblical command “Do not burn a fire in your homes on the Sabbath?” (Exodus 35:2-3) 

 

It is significant that the original prohibition is not about cooking, heating, kindling a fire or lighting the home, although these usual explanations have come to be included in the later rabbinic extensions of forbidden activities. 

 

The text (Exodus 35:2-3) states that “burning” a fire is not permitted. It does not mention “lighting” or “kindling” a fire.

 

1.     Since ancient times fires have been burned to drive away demons and evil spirits. (Psalm 97:3)  Given the biblical effort to eliminate all manifestations of paganism and belief in demons, it is easy to understand that the popular practice of burning a fire in the home on the Sabbath against demons could not be tolerated.  But the biblical authors, religious purists who struggled to purge Judaism of all traces of paganism had to contend with the unwillingness of the populace to abandon those practices that they hoped would protect them from the dangers of ever threatening demonic powers. The Hebrew word leba’er (=to burn) implies a ritual burning for the purpose of eliminating impurity or paganism (as in “biur chametz,” the ritual burning of the leaven before Passover) or destroying evil. It does not mean “to light, or to kindle. 

 

In spite of the attempts by the biblical authors to eradicate popular pagan practices (such as anti-demonic fire in the home), these practices managed to persist.

 

The Case of the Firewood Collector

 

2. Further biblical evidence of the frustration of the purists with the popular unwillingness to abandon the anti-demonic home fire is found in Numbers 15:32-36. While in the wilderness, after the Exodus, a man was found gathering firewood on the Sabbath. He was brought before Moses and Aaron who could not find a law or precedent which the man had violated. The man was placed under guard while the Urim and Tummim (ancient sacred oracular objects that were believed to convey the will of God) were consulted. The verdict was guilty, and then the penalty was death.

 

What was the man accused of, and what was he condemned for? 

Later rabbinic interpretation mistakenly concludes that the crime was carrying a burden on the Sabbath. Yet from the context it appears that he was charged with gathering firewood with intent to burn the forbidden anti-demonic home fire on the Sabbath. The serious crime of paganism, the belief in false gods, was a capital offense. This new precedent established by the Urim and Tummim was that the commission of an act prior to the actual crime, but which act (gathering firewood) was clearly for the sole purpose of committing the crime (burning the pagan fire), warranted the punishment that fit the serious crime even though it had not yet been committed. Intent to commit the crime was declared equal to committing the crime.

 

Still the burning of the forbidden fire continued in popular practice.

Jeremiah 7:17-18

 

3. The anti-demonic home fire next surfaces in the late 7th century B.C.E. Jeremiah accuses the people: 

“The children gather firewood, the men burn the fire, …

 

[this same Hebrew root leba’er (=to burn) is used here as in Exodus 35:2-3. Here the form is meba’arim (=they burn). The word esh (=fire) here appears with the definite article, Ha’esh (=THE fire), denoting a very specific type of fire.] 

 

…and the women knead (clay) to make images for the (pagan goddess) Queen of Heaven, and they pour wine offerings to strange gods.” (Jeremiah 7:17-18)

So, the collecting wood and burning the fire are related to paganism, and in Exodus 35:2-3, related to the Sabath.

 

Jeremiah in Egypt

 

4. Years later, Jeremiah, along with many of the people, escape to Egypt after the destruction of the First Temple. There, Jeremiah again accuses them of the same crimes. (Jeremiah 44:16-28) The people respond: 

“We listened to you back in chapter 7, Jeremiah, and we gave up these idolatries. In spite of that we were forced into exile in Egypt. That’s why we went back to our old pagan practices. They kept us in our homes and in our land. When we gave them up we were no longer protected from evil.” Jeremiah responds: “God says that your sin (in chapter 7) was so great that he could not forgive you even when you repented.”

 

What these stories further demonstrate is how tenaciously pagan practices, that were believed to be protective, survive, such as the forbidden anti-demonic Sabbath fire.

 

The Early Rabbinic Period 

First Century CE

 

5. When we reach the early rabbinic period in the first century C.E., some 1200 years have passed since the time of Moses. By this time a remarkable change had occurred. At some point, we don’t know exactly when, the once forbidden Sabbath fire was reinterpreted as a fire that sanctifies the Sabbath day, and was accepted as such by many in the Jewish community.

 

 

The Mishnah (Shabbat, chapter 2, late second century C.E.) assumes that the Sabbath lights are an accepted practice, but debates about which wicks or oils are acceptable. Are some wick materials and oils forbidden because they are aromatic and might therefore be wrongly selected for their anti-demonic properties? That may be the reason that wicks made from wood are prohibited. (Mishnah Shabbat 2:3) 

 

 

 

 

The Blessing for the Sabbath Lights

 

There is no mention in the Mishnah of a blessing for the Sabbath lights. ¯The Mishnaic statement (Shabbat 2:6): “For three transgressions do women die in childbirth…and for (failing to) light the (Sabbath) light,” is probably a vestige of the ancient belief that the fire on the Sabbath drives away the evil demons.

 

6. The Talmud (Shabbat 20b-24b, from Babylonia, late fifth century C.E.) while discussing the above Mishnah about wicks spends much more time discussing Hanukkah lights than Shabbat lights, and debates the formula for the Hanukkah light blessing (23a) without ever mentioning a Sabbath light blessing.

 

7. The debate about a blessing for the Sabbath lights does not surface until the middle of the Geonic Period, (latter part of the ninth century C.E.). (See the excellent analysis of the Sabbath lights in Lawrence A. Hoffman,”The Canonization of the Synagogue Service,” 1979, pp. 86-89, and notes 60-73, on pp. 212-213.) 

The issue revolved around a conflict with the Karaites, a Jewish sect that prohibited Sabbath lights in keeping with the biblical prohibition against burning a fire on the Sabbath. It is even likely that the Karaites inherited this prohibition from their predecessors, the Second Temple Sadducees, (see Jacob Z. Lauterbach, “Rabbinic Essays,” 1951, “The Sabbath,” p.458, n.92.) who followed biblical laws while rejecting the Pharisaic-Rabbinic oral traditions. 

 

Rabbinic reinterpretation and acceptance of the popular practice of lighting the biblically forbidden Sabbath fire had not been accepted by the Karaites. 

 

In order to establish the legitimacy of their approval of lights that sanctify the Sabbath, and as a polemic against the Karaites, the Geonim instituted the blessing. The wording for this new Sabbath light blessing was borrowed from the already familiar Hanukkah lights blessing. (Hoffman, p.86) 

Since there is no direct source in the Bible for “… who commanded us to kindle the Sabbath lights,” the Geonim sought indirect justification from various biblical verses following the precedent set in the Talmud by which they had already justified the blessing for the Hanukkah lights. (Shabbat 23a)

 

Angels

 

8. There are old beliefs that angels come down through, or rest on, the flames of the Sabbath lights. (Lauterbach, pp.465-466.) Whether this originated in the Bible (Exodus 3:2; Judges 13:20) or elsewhere, it is expounded in Kabbalistic and other later Jewish writings. On Friday evening two angels accompany a person home from the synagogue (Shabbat 119b), one good the other evil, and in the “Shalom aleichem” their protective blessing is sought, along with those of other angels. 

9. There is yet another source that demonstrates a connection between the Sabbath lights and the ancient belief that they protect the home by driving away evil spirits. 

 

“Techinot”

 

“Techinot,” collections of prayers in Yiddish that were often composed by women, and were intended to be recited before or after performing rituals, first appear in printed form at the beginning of the 18th century, but reflect much earlier traditions. These collections are still in use today especially in Chassidic communities. The “techinah” recited immediately after the lighting of the Sabbath lights reads in part, 

 

“May all my (Sabbath) lights burn bright and holy to drive away the evil spirits and demons, that they fly away and be separated from the presence of these lights which I have kindled for the honor of the Sabbath, that they not harm neither man, woman or child from the entire people of Israel…And (may God) compel the accompanying evilangel to say amen to the blessing of the accompanying good angel.”

Reinterpreting the Sabbath and the Sabbath Lights

 

10. It is important for us to understand the origins and reinterpretive evolution of the Sabbath and its lights. Although like most Jewish practices they originated in pre-biblical times, our tradition from the Bible on, has sought to remove the elements of pagan belief and practice, whether by prohibition or reinterpretation. Their meaning and purpose has been reinterpreted in every age, to invest them with ever richer and more spiritual significance. The secret of the survival of Judaism and the Jewish people rests in this constant ongoing process of reinterpretation and change.

 

Today, if the Sabbath means different things to different people and practices vary accordingly, that is  indeed an expression of the reality of our human nature. Each of us needs to find our personal and collective reinterpretations.

 

In our day the Sabbath may symbolize our need to assert our independence from the pressures of everyday existence. It may protect us from being overwhelmed by our necessary obligations. It may help us to reunite with family and friends. It may help us to celebrate our lives, to stop, appreciate and give thanks for our families and friends, to rediscover the Divine in the world around us. It may bring us closer to our identity, our faith and our people, our history, values and our future. It may help give us the time to consider how we will make the world a better place.

 

Whatever meaning or reinterpretation we choose to bring to the Sabbath it will reward us no less than it did our ancestors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

My COMMENT published in Haaretz on this article by Chemi Shalev:

Opinion:

Liberal Jews of the World, Unite! The Only Thing You Have to Lose Is Your Pain

American Jewry and the Israeli left should issue a joint Declaration of Independence from Trump and Netanyahu and their dangerous assaults on democracy.

By

Chemi Shalev

10/8/18

From:

Haaretz

https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-liberal-jews-of-the-world-unite-the-only-thing-you-have-to-lose-is-your-pain-1.6543

******

COMMENT by

Manuel Gold

Chemi Shalev is so intent on making a false comparison between the problems facing America and Israel, strangely equating their problems and their solutions. Here in America our problem is Trump, his attempts to impose a dictatorial government, threaten our freedoms and the stability of a moral and ethical culture. We are not facing any external threats that could destroy us. It is purely an internal issue that is being dealt with by our democratic electoral system. Trump will be overpowered legally.

There is no comparison to what faces Israel. Implacable, rejectionist Palestinian threats and acts of violence are real, constant and immediate. Gazans are not protestors. They are mobs of rioters, throwing burning tires and stones, launching incendiary aerial devices, hurling hand grenades and explosive devices toward troops (see today’s Haaretz), trying to cross into Israel in their “Great March of Return” with which they hope to invade, causing death, destruction and chaos. From the PA and Abbas, their hope is to prolong the stalemate while Palestinians continue to murder Israelis, and they appeal for support from European nations, the UN, and the ICC. Demanding the Right of Return as basic to their position, they hope by this to flood Israel with the great grandchildren of their 1948 war, who the Palestinians have kept in Concentration Refugee Camps for this very propaganda purpose. If the opposition in Israel could present a strong defense position, the Israeli voters could possibly see an alternative to Netanyahu. But until then they see in Netanyahu that protector they need internally and internationally.

We here in America are concerned that Israel needs to look for support from less than democratic countries. But the so called liberal countries have all fallen for Palestinian victimhood. The Europeans demand an end to “occupation,” but that would be suicidal without peace. They make no demand on the Palestinians.

Trump is yet another problem. After eight years of Obama’s pressure on Israel, but not on the PA, and his complete failure in acknowledging the dangers of fundamentalist violent Islamists, it’s not hard to see why Israelis are enamored by Trump. We liberal Americans have deal with him, the Israelis don’t. Obama supported the terrorist Moslem Brotherhood regime of Morsi in Egypt, brushed off ISIS as the Junior Varsity, cancelled his Red Line in Syria, refused to employ a No Fly Zone in Syria that Hilary Clinton, his Secretary of State had proposed (which could have lessened the massacre of 500,000 Syrians), forced Israel to accept a cease fire in Gaza, which only prolonged the Gazans ability to claim victory and continue terrorism, voted against Israel in the UN Security Council, and finally forced on our Congress and on the American people, an Iran Giveaway Deal, that allows them in less ten years to develop nuclear weaponry, while they threaten Israel and their Arab neighbors and finance terrorism. Sanctions should have continued until the Iranian people, whose basic needs have been ignored, could force a change in policy.

Trump likely doesn’t know enough about why he is supporting Israel, but fortunately has left that to Jared Kushner.

Breaking the Palestinian myths of refugee descendants rights, their transferring the funds they are given to terrorist families, repeatedly trying to get the UN to condemn Israel, and teaching their children to kill Israelis by their textbooks, could possibly be the start to peace. It is little wonder that this recognition of reality about the Palestinians from America for the very first time, is encouraging to Israelis.

With all this, we American liberals have a serious problem. If we succeed in dethroning Trump, which we are committed to, what kind of Democratic regime will we get. The constant anti Israel, and often antisemitic, pressures from University professors is turning our youth who will be the future leaders of my Democratic Party, into far left supporters of BDS and against everything Israeli. Too many Jewish groups have been created that are ideologically rabidly incoherently anti Israel, and pro everything Palestinian. I am old enough to remember my college friends, in 1950, who were rabid pro Stalin Communists until the very end.

I know Israel will survive even when we Americans return to the Democratic Party, but it won’t be pleasant. That is our dilemma.

Manuel Gold

Kol Nidre Re-examined

Kol Nidre Re-examined: by Rabbi Manuel Gold

1. Almost everything written about Kol Nidre, its origins, and its meaning for our time, misses the mark.

2. The drama of the KN alone makes it the most fitting introduction to the YK ritual, and when understood, there is no need to be embarrassed or to remove it.

Ark is opened.

(All) Torah scrolls removed.

Congregation stands.

Only evening when everyone wears a Talit.

KN recited 3 times, BEFORE the Yom Kippur service.

Voice LOUDER each time (at least since Mahzor Vitry, c. 12th century).

Recited in Aramaic.

This creates one of the most dramatic experiences of the Jewish year, mystery, awe, anticipation, totally at odds with the meaning of the words, which could as well be irrelevant.

3. KN is NOT a prayer. At best it is a formula. It is recited, not prayed. What did it mean?

4. The earliest text is quoted in Seder Rav Amram Gaon. (9th cent.)

“v’yesh sh’oseen kach….. matchil v’omeyr ….. kol neder….”

“There are those who do as follows: The Leader (Sh”Tz) begins and SAYS thus: Kol Nidre….”

Amram then calls KN a “minhag sh’tut,” a stupid/silly custom. The use of the word “sh’tut” (stupid) is taken to indicate a magical or pagan custom.

5. In fact, the language of KN in our versions (Amram uses Hebrew) is very similar to the Jewish Aramaic Incantation Bowls from the Talmudic Period in Babylonia.

They were first discovered in the mid-19th cent., in the Jewish Quarter of Nippur, with at least one of these “cereal sized” bowls, buried upside down, under the floor of almost every Jewish home, and dating to the Talmudic Period. They were written in Talmudic Aramaic, to order, by a scribe in a spiral, from the center to the upper rim. They often contain the names of the members of the family who are to be protected and the many different names of the demons they are to be protected from. There are many curses/incantations against demons in the Bavli (cf. e.g. Pesahim 110 fff. ) that are also found in exactly in the same phrasing in these magic bowls.

Ever since the discovery of the Jewish Aramaic magical incantation bowls, scholars have commented on the similarity of terms in the Bavli, the bowls, and the KN, but never were able to explain why.

6. All previous discussions about KN centered on Halakha and which type of vows could be abrogated. Since some determined that you could not halakhicaly cancel, unilaterally, a vow of the past (as found in Amram’s, and also present day Sephardic texts), Rashi’s son-in-law (and quoted by Rabbenu Tam) changed the KN to refer to future vows, for Ashkenazim. But, this is actually impossible, since according to halakhah one cannot unilaterally abrogate a vow.

7. The KN is NOT about cancelling vows.

8. The clue that unlocked the mystery for me came from Saul Lieberman and his essay “Oaths and Vows (In ordinary speech),” in Greek and Jewish Palestine (pp. 115-143). Lieberman points out that in the ancient world Curses always accompanied Vows as “surety for their veracity.”

9. Therefore, it seems that since no one would believe your oath or vow, you also took upon yourself, additionally, a curse, invoking the demons and evil spirits to attack you if you lied or failed to fulfill the vow.

10. This is my proposal to explain KN. If one took a vow or oath that was rash, the Talmud provides the remedy. Before Rosh Hashanah you could go to a Bet Din, (or a “mumcheh” or “talmid chacham”) which after examination would determine if the vow could be cancelled. (Nedarim 23b)

But, that left you with the curse you had invoked upon yourself which was still operative. I assume that many Rabbis would say “We don’t do demons.” That left the “obsessive-compulsive vower” with no recourse but to do orally, what the magic bowls did in writing: invoke an oral incantation against those non-halakhic demons and evil spirits, to bind them, ban them, incapacitate them, invalidate them, and render them (not the vow) impotent, before YK, “yom hadin.” The increasingly louder sounds of KN drive away demons, as do knocking and tapping, even if done quietly. The talit everyone wears, in the evening service, only at KN, indicates it’s protective apotropaic origins. The knots (on the fringes) were considered protective.

(The Aramaic Magic Bowls are not “demon traps,” as some have suggested. That would be foolish, trapping demons would turn them into poltergeists, damaging all who are trapped with them. A few of the bowls indicate that they are deflecting the demons back down to the Seventh Depth of Sheol from which they came. Many bowls contain roughly drawn pictures in their center, of demons with their hands and legs bound with ropes or chains to incapacitate them.) Illustrations may be found on Wikipedia.

11. It is of interest that the English words “oath” and “swear,” have dual meanings.

They can mean to affirm by swearing or oath, to the truth or veracity of something. But, each word, “oath” or “swear,” can also mean “curse.” This seems to be an indication that in many cultures the average person, in order to be believed, would add a curse upon themselves, onto their vow to affirm their veracity. (Additionally, repeating KN three times, and increasing the volume each time, are indicative of magical praxis,)

12. For our day, the KN still has great meaning. In addition to setting a powerful mood to introduce YK, there is also another value. For those of us who no longer believe in demonic powers that can affect our lives, KN may remind us of the “inner demons” that may afflict us. These are the “demons” that prevent us from living up to our ideals, from being the kind of people we would like to be, from helping those in need, from not showing love to those who are dear to us, from not making the world a better place and for leaving important things undone. These “demons” are always around. Conquering them is what YK is all about. KN may help to remind us of this challenge.

JOSEPH UNBOUND

JOSEPH UNBOUND 4

A New Close Reading of the Text

Manuel Gold

Why have we gotten it all wrong?

It it is amazing that the text has been so misread. It may be due to the fact we tend to repeat the received wisdom of the past. It is even hard to admit that all our traditional commentaries have gotten it wrong. Perhaps the clues are so obvious they cannot be correct. Only complex scholarly readings are admired. The text itself can tell us what it actually meant to the authors or what it means to us.

Joseph is described as tattling to his father about his innocent brothers. His dreָam is pure arrogance. He is almost the cause of his own fate. Or perhaps it was Gods Plan.

That’s not what a close reading of the text reveals.

If we were to begin with his brothers, they appear despicable. Regardless of anything Joseph did, they were not warranted to let him die of starvation in the pit, sell him into slavery or lie to and destroy their father.

Here is what the text tells us.

A.

Genesis Chap. 37, 2

אלה תלדות יעקב יוסף בן שבע עשרה שנה היה רעה את אחיו בצאן והוא נער את בני בלהה ואת בני זלפה נשי אביו ויבא יוסף את דבתם רעה אל אביהם

2This is the story of the family of Jacob. When Joseph was seventeen years old, he was tending the flocks with his brothers; he was a lad with (or “an assistant to”) the sons of his father’s wives Bilhah and Zilpah, and Joseph brought their father bad reports about them.

Usually translated:

“…. Joseph, aged seventeen, was a shepherd with his brothers, a (mere) lad, with (or even “assistant, to”) Bilhah’s and Zilpah’s sons…… and Joseph would report their evil talk to their father.”

What was Joseph’s role vis a vis his brothers?

It all hinges on the word נער which usually means “lad,” but there is another, rarer meaning.

B.

2Samuel 9:9

​ויקרא המלך אל-ציבא נער שאול ויאמר אליו כל אשר היה לשאול ולכל-ביתו נתתי לבן-אדניך

9The king then called Ziba, Saul’s נער, (na’ar =) lad or attendant, and said to him: “All that belonged to Saul and to his entire house, I am giving to your lord’s son.

C.

2Samuel 9:10

​ועבדת לו את-האדמה אתה ובניך ועבדיך והבאת והיה לבן-אדניך לחם ואכלו ומפיבשת בן-אדניך יאכל תמיד לחם על-שלחני ולציבא חמשה עשר בנים ועשרים עבדים

10You and your sons and servants must till the land for him. You shall bring in the produce, which shall be food for your lord’s household to eat. But Meribbaal, your lord’s son, shall always eat at my table.” Now Ziba had fifteen sons and twenty servants.

So in 2Sam, Ziba is a נער שאול and has fifteen children and twenty servants. He was originally in charge of the estates of Saul, and David reappoints him, and orders him resupply the “royal table” since it was now going to have present the lame son of Saul, who safely couldn’t be king, since he couldn’t lead the army in battle. Leading the army was the only reason to have a king.

• Also David, unlike Saul, was not wealthy, and needed the subterfuge of Mephiboshet’s presence to provide food for his own entourage. Before becoming king, David was leader of a band of mercenaries who provided protection to wealthy landowners. (1Sam 22:2, 400 men, outcasts of society, which has grown to 600 in 1Sam 25, in which he demands payment for services rendered but not requested).

So נער has a secondary meaning, “to be in charge of,” or be “supervisor.” Ziba, a grown man, is in charge of Saul’s estates.

Joseph also was in charge of four of his brothers, the two sons of each concubine wife. They would have been the lowest class among all jacob’s sons, so would have been given the lowest task, taking care of the cattle. Apparently they could not be trusted so Jacob designates the youngest son of a primary wife (Joseph) to supervise them.

(There are also some ancient Israelite jar handle stamps and seals with נער. In these seals נער means “supervisor for” or “administrator of” the king or master. Examples are:

לאליקם נער יוכן, ; למלכיהו נער שפט ; לבניהו נער חגי These are hardly “lads.” They are important enough to warrant having a seal with their name and the name of their master.)

D.

Genesis 46:28

ואת-יהודה שלח לפניו אל-יוסף להורת לפניו גשנה ויבאו ארצה גשן

28Israel had sent Judah ahead to Joseph, so that he might meet him in Goshen. On his arrival in the region of Goshen,

This is usually mistranslated “so he (Jacob) sent Judah ahead to teach him to get instructions on the route to (or “to meet him in”) Goshen.” First, the brothers have already been to Goshen a number of times. They know the route. There would usually be one major highway to Goshen with Egyptian military guards stationed along the route to protect traveling merchants from the ever present robbers. (דרן ארץ פלשתים Exodus 13:17)

Second, the following verses tell us clearly the Judah is being sent ahead to get information from Joseph about what they must say to pharaoh that will get him to give permission for Jacob and Sons to settle in Goshen, not just grant them temporary residence. The Egyptians usually would not give permission for foreigners to settle there. But, in time of famine, Egyptians would allow foreign cattlemen to stay in Egypt, since the shortage of grain could be supplemented by meat from their cattle. Goshen, in the Nile Delta, was not hospitable for farming. In fact Egyptian texts and tomb paintings tell us that Goshen was cattle country, and Egyptians from the farm country would send their cattle, by barge, north to Goshen to be raised. They would be branded by their owners. When those owners required the meat, they would send for the slaughtered cattle to be shipped south by barge back to their owners.

(See “F” below, Papyrus Anastasi VI, indicating Egyptians allowing Bedouins and their cattle to enter Goshen, in time of famine, where the Delta waters would provide grazing, and also provide Egyptians with meat in time of that famine.)

E.

1. Genesis 46:31

​ויאמר יוסף אל-אחיו ואל-בית אביו אעלה ואגידה לפרעה ואמרה אליו אחי ובית-אבי אשר בארץ-כנען באו אלי

31Joseph then said to his brothers and his father’s household: “I will go up and inform Pharaoh, telling him: ‘My brothers and my father’s household, whose home is in the land of Canaan, have come to me.

Joseph now meticulously prepares his brothers with exactly what to reply to pharaoh. They must be careful not to reveal to pharaoh that they are really merchants. Merchants were generally regarded as spies for the country they came from. According to ancient law, merchants were were only permitted to stay in the place they were going, during the short period of the transactions. They couldn’t settle, buy land, or even rent homes. They would have to move on.

(See the laws for merchants at Ugarit. See also, when Abraham the merchant, in order to even purchase a plot of land for the burial of his wife, must first secure special permission from the assembled council of elders of Hebron to purchase merely the single plot of land, in a complex transaction.Genesis 23)

When the brothers first came to Egypt to trade for food, Joseph says to them (Genesis 42:9 and 14 and again in verse 16) “You are spies. You’ve come to find out the weakness (nakedness) of the land.” “As a test bring your youngest brother.” “If not, you are surely spies.”

2. Genesis 46:32

​והאנשים רעי צאן כי-אנשי מקנה היו וצאנם ובקרם וכל-אשר להם הביאו

32The men are shepherds, having been owners of livestock;* and they have brought with them their flocks and herds, as well as everything else they own.’

Joseph: “and I will say to pharaoh, they (my family) are cattlemen, they’ve brought their sheep and cattle.”

3. Genesis 46:33

והיה כי-יקרא לכם פרעה ואמר מה-מעשיכם

33So when Pharaoh summons you and asks what your occupation is,

Now comes Part 2 of the ruse to get his merchant family to live in Goshen. “When pharaoh asks you ‘What is your occupation?’ “

4. Genesis 46:34

ואמרתם אנשי מקנה היו עבדיך מנעורינו ועד-עתה גם-אנחנו גם-אבתינו בעבור תשבו בארץ גשן כי-תועבת מצרים כל-רעה צאן

34you must answer, ‘We your servants, like our ancestors, have been owners of livestock from our youth until now,’ in order that you may stay in the region of Goshen, since all shepherds are abhorrent to the Egyptians.”

“You are to say ‘We have been cattlemen since time immemorial and (therefore) we’ve come to live in Goshen, since we know that raising sheep is abhorrent to Egyptians.’ “

Indeed Egyptian tomb paintings depict cattlemen as disheveled and lowly.

So Joseph is preparing his brothers not to reveal that they are primarily majoring as merchants, while they were actually minoring in cattle raising.

5. Genesis 47:1

ויבא יוסף ויגד לפרעה ויאמר אבי ואחי וצאנם ובקרם וכל-אשר להם באו מארץ כנען והנם בארץ גשן:

1Joseph went and told Pharaoh, “My father and my brothers have come from the land of Canaan, with their flocks and herds and everything else they own; and they are now in the region of Goshen.”

Now Part 3 of the ruse.

Joseph tells pharaoh “My father and brothers and their cattle and all their baggage have come from Canaan, and they’re right here in Goshen.”

6. Genesis 47:2

ומקצה אחיו לקח חמשה אנשים ויצגם לפני פרעה

2He then presented to Pharaoh five of his brothers whom he had selected from their full number.

Then Joseph takes FIVE from among his brothers and presents them to pharaoh.

Which five have been fodder for speculation for ages. All solutions have been erroneous.

If we take the entire story in context then we can perhaps solve the problem.

Which are the shepherd brothers?

We read, back in “A” above (Genesis 37:2) that the two sons of Bilhah and the two sons of Zilpah, the concubine wives, tend to the cattle.

Who is the fifth son?

Back in Genesis 37:2 it is the youngest son of a primary wife, Joseph, who is assigned to be a נער to supervise the four. Now Joseph is not lying to pharaoh. Joseph takes from among all his brothers, the lower level cattlemen brothers and their new supervisor brother (Benjamin?) and presents pharaoh with an honest group of cattlemen brothers.

Was pharaoh in on this? The text never tells us.

7. Genesis 47:3

ויאמר פרעה אל-אחיו מה-מעשיכם ויאמרו אל-פרעה רעה צאן עבדיך גם-אנחנו גם-אבותינו

3When Pharaoh asked them, “What is your occupation?” they answered, “We, your servants, like our ancestors, are shepherds.

Finally, Part 4 in the ruse. True to what Joseph prepared them for, pharaoh asks “What is your occupation? They reply “We’ve always been shepherds.”

8. Genesis 47:4

ויאמרו אל-פרעה לגור בארץ באנו כי-אין מרעה לצאן אשר לעבדיך כי-כבד הרעב בארץ כנען ועתה ישבו-נא עבדיך בארץ גשן

4We have come,” they continued, “in order to sojourn in this land, for there is no pasture for your servants’ flocks, because the famine has been severe in the land of Canaan. So now please let your servants settle in the region of Goshen.”

“We’ve come to settle in the land because of the severe famine in Canaan so please permit us to live in Goshen.

9. Genesis 47:5

ויאמר פרעה אל-יוסף לאמר אביך ואחיך באו אליך

5Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Now that your father and your brothers have come to you,

10. Genesis 47:6

ארץ מצרים לפניך הוא במיטב הארץ הושב את-אביך ואת-אחיך ישבו בארץ גשן ואם-ידעת ויש-בם אנשי-חיל ושמתם שרי מקנה על-אשר-לי

6the land of Egypt is at your disposal; settle your father and brothers in the pick of the land. Let them settle in the region of Goshen. And if you know of capable men among them, put them in charge of my livestock.”

Pharaoh replies, the best part of the whole land is open to you, especially (given your occupation, that is) the land of Goshen. Those among you who are the armed bodyguards (all merchants or cattlemen traveled with armed protection. See Abraham in Genesis 14:14 who has at least 318 armed men) will be reassigned to my armed guards (since you wont need them anymore. My guards wil take care of you and the other cattlemen).”

11. Genesis 47:11

ויושב יוסף את-אביו ואת-אחיו ויתן להם אחזה בארץ מצרים במיטב הארץ בארץ רעמסס כאשר צוה פרעה

11Joseph settled his father and brothers and gave them a holding in Egypt on the pick of the land, in the region of Rameses,* as Pharaoh had ordered.

So the entire family settled in the allotted land, in (what was later called) Ramses Land.

**

F.

Papyrus Anastasi VI c. 1206 BCE, Egyptian Border Guards’ Official Records

ANET p. 259 (from Memphis)

“Another communication to my [lord], to [wit: We] have finished letting the Bedouin tribes of Edom pass the Fortress [of] Mer-ne-Ptah Hotep-hir-Maat—life, prosperity, health!—which is (in) Tjeku (Sukkot?) to the pools of Per-Atum [of] Mer-[ne]-Ptah Hotep-hir-Maat, which are (in) Tjeku, to keep them alive and to keep their cattle alive….”

****

A final thought.

Why was Joseph sent to report on his (primary) brothers? Why were his brothers so upset?

At first, Joseph is assigned to watch over the concubine brothers, since the could not be trusted.

Then, something occurs that causes Jacob to be suspicious, even of the primary brothers, so he sends Joseph to report on them. What had they done? We can only speculate. Perhaps Jacob became aware of their dishonesty and other character flaws. Were they, as the commercial trading part of the family, secretly selling cattle or other products? Their dishonesty is evidenced by their action against Shechem in the Dinah story. They tell them they can’t let their sister marry to the uncircumcised. When they agree to a mass circumcision, respecting the demand, the brothers still massacre them, and don’t allow the marriage to Dinah. They later want to kill Joseph. Then put him in a pit, which would also kill him. Then sell him into slavery. And they trick their father into believing Joseph was killed by wild animals.

The brothers are furious that their father has sent his trustworthy son to report back on their activities. Did they have something to hide?

Perhaps Jacob was right in not trusting his sons, and sending Joseph to report back to him on their activities?

The above close reading of the text makes no claim about the historicity of the events related. But, at the very least, from a literary perspective these stories present an invaluable picture of our ancestor’s self definition, and it is part of the sacred mythology of our origins. It is a complex story with countless opportunities to read into the stories the dos and donts of our own present value system.

In any event the stories show a great familiarity with the period of history they describe.

Perhaps much of the story may even have actually happened.

•

Joseph Unbound

JOSEPH UNBOUND 3

A New Close Reading of the Text

Manuel Gold

Why have we gotten it all wrong?

It it is amazing that the text has been so misread. It may be due to the fact we tend to repeat the received wisdom of the past. It is even hard to admit that all our traditional commentaries have gotten it wrong. Perhaps the clues are so obvious they cannot be correct. Only complex scholarly readings are admired. The text itself can tell us what it actually meant to the authors or what it means to us.

Joseph is described as tattling to his father about his innocent brothers. His dreָam is pure arrogance. He is almost the cause of his own fate. Or perhaps it was Gods Plan.

That’s not what a close reading of the text reveals.

If we were to begin with his brothers, they appear despicable. Regardless of anything Joseph did, they were not warranted to let him die of starvation in the pit, sell him into slavery or lie to and destroy their father.

Here is what the text tells us.

A.

Genesis Chap. 37, 2

אלה תלדות יעקב יוסף בן שבע עשרה שנה היה רעה את אחיו בצאן והוא נער את בני בלהה ואת בני זלפה נשי אביו ויבא יוסף את דבתם רעה אל אביהם

Usually translated:

“…. Joseph, aged seventeen, was a shepherd with his brothers, a (mere) lad, with Bilhah’s and Zilpah’s sons…… and Joseph would report their evil talk to their father.”

What was Joseph’s role vis a vis his brothers?

It all hinges on the word נער which usually means “lad,” but there is another, rarer meaning.

B.

2Samuel 9:9

​ויקרא המלך אל-ציבא נער שאול ויאמר אליו כל אשר היה לשאול ולכל-ביתו נתתי לבן-אדניך:

C.

2Samuel 9:10

​ועבדת לו את-האדמה אתה ובניך ועבדיך והבאת והיה לבן-אדניך לחם ואכלו ומפיבשת בן-אדניך יאכל תמיד לחם על-שלחני ולציבא חמשה עשר בנים ועשרים עבדים:

So in 2Sam, Ziba is a נער שאול and has fifteen children and twenty servants. He was originally in charge of the estates of Saul, and David reappoints him, and orders him resupply the “royal table” since it was now going to have present the lame son of Saul, who safely couldn’t be king, since he couldn’t lead the army in battle. Leading the army was the only reason to have a king.

• Also David, unlike Saul, was not wealthy, and needed the subterfuge of Mephiboshet’s presence to provide food for his own entourage. Before becoming king, David was leader of a band of mercenaries who provided protection to wealthy landowners. (1Sam 22:2, 400 men, outcasts of society, which has grown to 600 in 1Sam 25, in which he demands payment for services rendered but not requested).

So נער has a secondary meaning, “to be in charge of,” or be “supervisor.” Ziba, a grown man, is in charge of Saul’s estates.

Joseph also was in charge of four of his brothers, the two sons of each concubine wife. They would have been the lowest class among all jacob’s sons, so would have been given the lowest task, taking care of the cattle. Apparently they could not be trusted so Jacob designates the youngest son of a primary wife (Joseph) to supervise them. (There are also some ancient Israelite jar handle stamps and seals with נער. In these seals נער means “supervisor for” or “administrator of” the king or master. Examples are לאליקם נער יוכן, ; למלכיהו נער שפט ; לבניהו נער חגי These are hardly “lads.” They are important enough to warrant having a seal with their name and the name of their master.)

D.

Genesis 46:28

ואת-יהודה שלח לפניו אל-יוסף להורת לפניו גשנה ויבאו ארצה גשן:

This is usually mistranslated “so he (Jacob) sent Judah ahead to get instructions on the route to Goshen.” First, the brothers have already been to Goshen a number of times. They know the route. There would usually be one major highway to Goshen with Egyptian military guards stationed along the route to protect traveling merchants from the ever present robbers. (דרן ארץ פלשתים Exodus 13:17)

Second, the following verses tell us clearly the Judah is being sent ahead to get information from Joseph about what they must say to pharaoh that will get him to give permission for Jacob and Sons to settle in Goshen, not just grant them temporary residence. The Egyptians usually would not give permission for foreigners to settle there. But, in time of famine, Egyptians would allow foreign cattlemen to stay in Egypt, since the shortage of grain could be supplemented by meat from their cattle. Goshen, in the Nile Delta, was not hospitable for farming. In fact Egyptian texts and tomb paintings tell us that Goshen was cattle country, and Egyptians from the farm country would send their cattle, by barge, north to Goshen to be raised. They would be branded by their owners. When those owners required the meat, they would send for the slaughtered cattle to be shipped south by barge back to their owners.

(See “F” below, Papyrus Anastasi VI, indicating Egyptians allowing Bedouins and their cattle to enter Goshen where the Delta waters would provide grazing, and also provide Egyptians with meat in time of famine.)

E.

1. Genesis 46:31

​ויאמר יוסף אל-אחיו ואל-בית אביו אעלה ואגידה לפרעה ואמרה אליו אחי ובית-אבי אשר בארץ-כנען באו אלי:

Joseph now meticulously prepares his brothers with exactly what to reply to pharaoh. They must be careful not to reveal to pharaoh that they are really merchants. Merchants were generally regarded as spies for the country they came from. According to ancient law, merchants were were only permitted to stay in the place they were going, during the short period of the transactions. They couldn’t settle, buy land, or even rent homes. They would have to move on.

(See the laws for merchants at Ugarit. See also, when Abraham the merchant, in order to even purchase a plot of land for the burial of his wife, must first secure special permission from the assembled council of elders of Hebron in a complex transaction.Genesis 23)

When the brothers first came to Egypt to trade for food, Joseph says to them (Genesis 42:9 and 14 and again in verse 16) “You are spies. You’ve come to find out the weakness (nakedness) of the land.” “As a test bring your youngest brother.” “If not, you are surely spies.”

2. Genesis 46:32

​והאנשים רעי צאן כי-אנשי מקנה היו וצאנם ובקרם וכל-אשר להם הביאו:

Joseph: “and I will say to pharaoh, they (my family) are cattlemen, they’ve brought their sheep and cattle.”

3. Genesis 46:33

והיה כי-יקרא לכם פרעה ואמר מה-מעשיכם:

Now comes Part 2 of the ruse to get his merchant family to live in Goshen. “When pharaoh asks you ‘What is you occupation?’ “

4. Genesis 46:34

ואמרתם אנשי מקנה היו עבדיך מנעורינו ועד-עתה גם-אנחנו גם-אבתינו בעבור תשבו בארץ גשן כי-תועבת מצרים כל-רעה צאן:

“You are to say ‘We have been cattlemen since time immemorial and (therefore) we’ve come to live in Goshen, since we know that raising sheep is abhorrent to Egyptians.’ “

Indeed Egyptian tomb paintings depict cattlemen as disheveled and lowly.

So Joseph is preparing his brothers not to reveal that they are primarily majoring as merchants, while they were actually minoring in cattle raising.

5. Genesis 47:1

ויבא יוסף ויגד לפרעה ויאמר אבי ואחי וצאנם ובקרם וכל-אשר להם באו מארץ כנען והנם בארץ גשן:

Now Part 3 of the ruse.

Joseph tells pharaoh “My father and brothers and their cattle and all their baggage have come from Canaan, and they’re right here in Goshen.”

6. Genesis 47:2

ומקצה אחיו לקח חמשה אנשים ויצגם לפני פרעה:

Then Joseph takes FIVE from among his brothers and presents them to pharaoh.

Which five have been fodder for speculation for ages. All solutions have been erroneous.

If we take the entire story in context then we can perhaps solve the problem.

Which are the shepherd brothers?

We read, back in “A” above (Genesis 37:2) that the two sons of Bilhah and the two sons of Zilpah, the concubine wives, tend to the cattle.

Who is the fifth son?

Back in Genesis 37:2 it is the youngest son of a primary wife, Joseph, who is assigned to be a נער to supervise the four. Now Joseph is not lying to pharaoh. Joseph takes from among all his brothers, the lower level cattlemen brothers and their new supervisor brother (Benjamin?) and presents pharaoh with an honest group of cattlemen brothers.

Was pharaoh in on this? The text never tells us.

7. Genesis 47:3

ויאמר פרעה אל-אחיו מה-מעשיכם ויאמרו אל-פרעה רעה צאן עבדיך גם-אנחנו גם-אבותינו:

Finally, Part 4 in the ruse. True to what Joseph prepared them for, pharaoh asks “What is your occupation? They reply “We’ve always been shepherds.”

8. Genesis 47:4

ויאמרו אל-פרעה לגור בארץ באנו כי-אין מרעה לצאן אשר לעבדיך כי-כבד הרעב בארץ כנען ועתה ישבו-נא עבדיך בארץ גשן:

“We’ve come to settle in the land because of the severe famine in Canaan so please permit us to live in Goshen.

9. Genesis 47:5

ויאמר פרעה אל-יוסף לאמר אביך ואחיך באו אליך:

10. Genesis 47:6

ארץ מצרים לפניך הוא במיטב הארץ הושב את-אביך ואת-אחיך ישבו בארץ גשן ואם-ידעת ויש-בם אנשי-חיל ושמתם שרי מקנה על-אשר-לי:

Pharaoh replies, the best part of the whole land is open to you, especially (given your occupation, that is) the land of Goshen. Those among you who are the armed bodyguards (all merchants or cattlemen traveled with armed protection. See Abraham in Genesis 14:14 who has at least 318 armed men) will be reassigned to my armed guards (since you wont need them anymore. My guards wil take care of you and the other cattlemen).”

11. Genesis 47:11

ויושב יוסף את-אביו ואת-אחיו ויתן להם אחזה בארץ מצרים במיטב הארץ בארץ רעמסס כאשר צוה פרעה:

So the entire family settled in the allotted land, in (what was later called) Ramses Land.

F.

Papyrus Anastasi VI c. 1206 BCE, Egyptian Border Guards’ Official Records

ANET p. 259 (from Memphis)

“Another communication to my [lord], to [wit: We] have finished letting the Bedouin tribes of Edom pass the Fortress [of] Mer-ne-Ptah Hotep-hir-Maat—life, prosperity, health!—which is (in) Tjeku (Sukkot?) to the pools of Per-Atum [of] Mer-[ne]-Ptah Hotep-hir-Maat, which are (in) Tjeku, to keep them alive and to keep their cattle alive….”

A final thought. Why was Joseph sent to report on his (primary) brothers? Why were his brothers so upset?

At first, Joseph is assigned to watch over the concubine brothers, since the could not be trusted.

Then, something occurs that causes Jacob to be suspicious, even of the primary brothers, so he sends Joseph to report on them. What had they done? We can only speculate. Perhaps Jacob became aware of their dishonesty and other character flaws. Were they, as the commercial trading part of the family, secretly selling cattle or other products? Their dishonesty is evidenced by their action against Shechem in the Dinah story. They tell them they can’t let their sister marry to the uncircumcised. When they agree to a mass circumcision, respecting the demand, the brothers still massacre them, and don’t allow the marriage to Dinah. They later want to kill Joseph. Then put him in a pit, which would also kill him. Then sell him into slavery. And they trick their father into believing Joseph was killed by wild animals.

The brothers are furious that their father has sent his trustworthy son to report back on their activities. Did they have something to hide?

Perhaps Jacob was right in not trusting his sons, and sending Joseph to report back to him on their activities?

The above close reading of the text makes no claim about the historicity of the events related. But, at the very least, from a literary perspective these stories present an invaluable picture of our ancestor’s self definition, and it is part of the sacred mythology of our origins. It is a complex story with countless opportunities to read into the stories the dos and donts of our own present value system.

In any event the stories show a great familiarity with the period of history they describe.

Perhaps much of the story may even have actually happened.

•

Joseph Unbound

 

JOSEPH UNBOUND 3

A New Close Reading of the Text

Manuel Gold

Why have we gotten it all wrong?

It it is amazing that the text has been so misread. It may be due to the fact we tend to repeat the received wisdom of the past. It is even hard to admit that all our traditional commentaries have gotten it wrong. Perhaps the clues are so obvious they cannot be correct. Only complex scholarly readings are admired. The text itself can tell us what it actually meant to the authors or what it means to us.

Joseph is described as tattling to his father about his innocent brothers. His dreָam is pure arrogance. He is almost the cause of his own fate. Or perhaps it was Gods Plan.
That’s not what a close reading of the text reveals.

If we were to begin with his brothers, they appear despicable. Regardless of anything Joseph did, they were not warranted to let him die of starvation in the pit, sell him into slavery or lie to and destroy their father.

Here is what the text tells us.

 

 

A.
Genesis Chap. 37, 2
‎אלה תלדות יעקב יוסף בן שבע עשרה שנה היה רעה את אחיו בצאן והוא נער את בני בלהה ואת בני זלפה נשי אביו ויבא יוסף את דבתם רעה אל אביהם

Usually translated:
“…. Joseph, aged seventeen, was a shepherd with his brothers, a (mere) lad, with Bilhah’s and Zilpah’s sons…… and Joseph would report their evil talk to their father.”

What was Joseph’s role vis a vis his brothers?
It all hinges on the word נער which usually means “lad,” but there is another, rarer meaning.

 

B.
2Samuel 9:9
‎​ויקרא המלך אל-ציבא נער שאול ויאמר אליו כל אשר היה לשאול ולכל-ביתו נתתי לבן-אדניך:

 

C.
2Samuel 9:10
‎​ועבדת לו את-האדמה אתה ובניך ועבדיך והבאת והיה לבן-אדניך לחם ואכלו ומפיבשת בן-אדניך יאכל תמיד לחם על-שלחני ולציבא חמשה עשר בנים ועשרים עבדים:

So in 2Sam, Ziba is a נער שאול and has fifteen children and twenty servants. He was originally in charge of the estates of Saul, and David reappoints him, and orders him resupply the “royal table” since it was now going to have present the lame son of Saul, who safely couldn’t be king, since he couldn’t lead the army in battle. Leading the army was the only reason to have a king.
• Also David, unlike Saul, was not wealthy, and needed the subterfuge of Mephiboshet’s presence to provide food for his own entourage. Before becoming king, David was leader of a band of mercenaries who provided protection to wealthy landowners. (1Sam 22:2, 400 men, outcasts of society, which has grown to 600 in 1Sam 25, in which he demands payment for services rendered but not requested).

So נער has a secondary meaning, “to be in charge of,” or be “supervisor.” Ziba, a grown man, is in charge of Saul’s estates.
Joseph also was in charge of four of his brothers, the two sons of each concubine wife. They would have been the lowest class among all jacob’s sons, so would have been given the lowest task, taking care of the cattle. Apparently they could not be trusted so Jacob designates the youngest son of a primary wife (Joseph) to supervise them. (There are also some ancient Israelite jar handle stamps and seals with נער. In these seals נער means “supervisor for” or “administrator of” the king or master. Examples are לאליקם נער יוכן, ; למלכיהו נער שפט ; לבניהו נער חגי These are hardly “lads.” They are important enough to warrant having a seal with their name and the name of their master.)

 

D.
Genesis 46:28
‎ואת-יהודה שלח לפניו אל-יוסף להורת לפניו גשנה ויבאו ארצה גשן:

This is usually mistranslated “so he (Jacob) sent Judah ahead to get instructions on the route to Goshen.” First, the brothers have already been to Goshen a number of times. They know the route. There would usually be one major highway to Goshen with Egyptian military guards stationed along the route to protect traveling merchants from the ever present robbers. (דרן ארץ פלשתים Exodus 13:17)

Second, the following verses tell us clearly the Judah is being sent ahead to get information from Joseph about what they must say to pharaoh that will get him to give permission for Jacob and Sons to settle in Goshen, not just grant them temporary residence. The Egyptians usually would not give permission for foreigners to settle there. But, in time of famine, Egyptians would allow foreign cattlemen to stay in Egypt, since the shortage of grain could be supplemented by meat from their cattle. Goshen, in the Nile Delta, was not hospitable for farming. In fact Egyptian texts and tomb paintings tell us that Goshen was cattle country, and Egyptians from the farm country would send their cattle, by barge, north to Goshen to be raised. They would be branded by their owners. When those owners required the meat, they would send for the slaughtered cattle to be shipped south by barge back to their owners.

(See “F” below, Papyrus Anastasi VI, indicating Egyptians allowing Bedouins and their cattle to enter Goshen where the Delta waters would provide grazing, and also provide Egyptians with meat in time of famine.)

E.
1. Genesis 46:31
‎​ויאמר יוסף אל-אחיו ואל-בית אביו אעלה ואגידה לפרעה ואמרה אליו אחי ובית-אבי אשר בארץ-כנען באו אלי:

Joseph now meticulously prepares his brothers with exactly what to reply to pharaoh. They must be careful not to reveal to pharaoh that they are really merchants. Merchants were generally regarded as spies for the country they came from. According to ancient law, merchants were were only permitted to stay in the place they were going, during the short period of the transactions. They couldn’t settle, buy land, or even rent homes. They would have to move on.

(See the laws for merchants at Ugarit. See also, when Abraham the merchant, in order to even purchase a plot of land for the burial of his wife, must first secure special permission from the assembled council of elders of Hebron in a complex transaction.Genesis 23)

When the brothers first came to Egypt to trade for food, Joseph says to them (Genesis 42:9 and 14 and again in verse 16) “You are spies. You’ve come to find out the weakness (nakedness) of the land.” “As a test bring your youngest brother.” “If not, you are surely spies.”

2. Genesis 46:32
‎​והאנשים רעי צאן כי-אנשי מקנה היו וצאנם ובקרם וכל-אשר להם הביאו:

Joseph: “and I will say to pharaoh, they (my family) are cattlemen, they’ve brought their sheep and cattle.”

3. Genesis 46:33
‎והיה כי-יקרא לכם פרעה ואמר מה-מעשיכם:

Now comes Part 2 of the ruse to get his merchant family to live in Goshen. “When pharaoh asks you ‘What is you occupation?’ “

4. Genesis 46:34
‎ואמרתם אנשי מקנה היו עבדיך מנעורינו ועד-עתה גם-אנחנו גם-אבתינו בעבור תשבו בארץ גשן כי-תועבת מצרים כל-רעה צאן:

“You are to say ‘We have been cattlemen since time immemorial and (therefore) we’ve come to live in Goshen, since we know that raising sheep is abhorrent to Egyptians.’ “
Indeed Egyptian tomb paintings depict cattlemen as disheveled and lowly.
So Joseph is preparing his brothers not to reveal that they are primarily majoring as merchants, while they were actually minoring in cattle raising.

5. Genesis 47:1
‎ויבא יוסף ויגד לפרעה ויאמר אבי ואחי וצאנם ובקרם וכל-אשר להם באו מארץ כנען והנם בארץ גשן:

Now Part 3 of the ruse.
Joseph tells pharaoh “My father and brothers and their cattle and all their baggage have come from Canaan, and they’re right here in Goshen.”

6. Genesis 47:2
‎ומקצה אחיו לקח חמשה אנשים ויצגם לפני פרעה:

Then Joseph takes FIVE from among his brothers and presents them to pharaoh.
Which five have been fodder for speculation for ages. All solutions have been erroneous.
If we take the entire story in context then we can perhaps solve the problem.
Which are the shepherd brothers?
We read, back in “A” above (Genesis 37:2) that the two sons of Bilhah and the two sons of Zilpah, the concubine wives, tend to the cattle.
Who is the fifth son?
Back in Genesis 37:2 it is the youngest son of a primary wife, Joseph, who is assigned to be a נער to supervise the four. Now Joseph is not lying to pharaoh. Joseph takes from among all his brothers, the lower level cattlemen brothers and their new supervisor brother (Benjamin?) and presents pharaoh with an honest group of cattlemen brothers.
Was pharaoh in on this? The text never tells us.

7. Genesis 47:3
‎ויאמר פרעה אל-אחיו מה-מעשיכם ויאמרו אל-פרעה רעה צאן עבדיך גם-אנחנו גם-אבותינו:

Finally, Part 4 in the ruse. True to what Joseph prepared them for, pharaoh asks “What is your occupation? They reply “We’ve always been shepherds.”

8. Genesis 47:4
‎ויאמרו אל-פרעה לגור בארץ באנו כי-אין מרעה לצאן אשר לעבדיך כי-כבד הרעב בארץ כנען ועתה ישבו-נא עבדיך בארץ גשן:

“We’ve come to settle in the land because of the severe famine in Canaan so please permit us to live in Goshen.

9. Genesis 47:5
‎ויאמר פרעה אל-יוסף לאמר אביך ואחיך באו אליך:

 

10. Genesis 47:6
‎ארץ מצרים לפניך הוא במיטב הארץ הושב את-אביך ואת-אחיך ישבו בארץ גשן ואם-ידעת ויש-בם אנשי-חיל ושמתם שרי מקנה על-אשר-לי:

Pharaoh replies, the best part of the whole land is open to you, especially (given your occupation, that is) the land of Goshen. Those among you who are the armed bodyguards (all merchants or cattlemen traveled with armed protection. See Abraham in Genesis 14:14 who has at least 318 armed men) will be reassigned to my armed guards (since you wont need them anymore. My guards wil take care of you and the other cattlemen).”

11. Genesis 47:11
‎ויושב יוסף את-אביו ואת-אחיו ויתן להם אחזה בארץ מצרים במיטב הארץ בארץ רעמסס כאשר צוה פרעה:

So the entire family settled in the allotted land, in (what was later called) Ramses Land.

F.
Papyrus Anastasi VI c. 1206 BCE, Egyptian Border Guards’ Official Records
ANET p. 259 (from Memphis)

“Another communication to my [lord], to [wit: We] have finished letting the Bedouin tribes of Edom pass the Fortress [of] Mer-ne-Ptah Hotep-hir-Maat—life, prosperity, health!—which is (in) Tjeku (Sukkot?) to the pools of Per-Atum [of] Mer-[ne]-Ptah Hotep-hir-Maat, which are (in) Tjeku, to keep them alive and to keep their cattle alive….”

A final thought. Why was Joseph sent to report on his (primary) brothers? Why were his brothers so upset?
At first, Joseph is assigned to watch over the concubine brothers, since the could not be trusted.
Then, something occurs that causes Jacob to be suspicious, even of the primary brothers, so he sends Joseph to report on them. What had they done? We can only speculate. Perhaps Jacob became aware of their dishonesty and other character flaws. Were they, as the commercial trading part of the family, secretly selling cattle or other products? Their dishonesty is evidenced by their action against Shechem in the Dinah story. They tell them they can’t let their sister marry to the uncircumcised. When they agree to a mass circumcision, respecting the demand, the brothers still massacre them, and don’t allow the marriage to Dinah. They later want to kill Joseph. Then put him in a pit, which would also kill him. Then sell him into slavery. And they trick their father into believing Joseph was killed by wild animals.
The brothers are furious that their father has sent his trustworthy son to report back on their activities. Did they have something to hide?
Perhaps Jacob was right in not trusting his sons, and sending Joseph to report back to him on their activities?

The above close reading of the text makes no claim about the historicity of the events related. But, at the very least, from a literary perspective these stories present an invaluable picture of our ancestor’s self definition, and it is part of the sacred mythology of our origins. It is a complex story with countless opportunities to read into the stories the dos and donts of our own present value system.

In any event the stories show a great familiarity with the period of history they describe.

Perhaps much of the story may even have actually happened.

 

 

•

The Jerusalem Temple

The Jerusalem Temple                      

by Manuel Gold 

The biblical stories of David and Solomon, convey to us the story that King David was not permitted to build the Temple because of the blood he shed in his many wars. King Solomon however was allowed, by God, to build that Temple because he was a man of peace and great wisdom.

There is a problem with this story. If David was prevented from building a temple because of his many wars, Solomon should not be whitewashed. Contra to our tradition, which often explains reality by attributing to it divine instruction, ex post facto, while David’s wars were against foreign enemies who sought to destroy “am Yisrael,” the People of Israel, in contrast Solomon’s wars and persecutions were against his fellow “am Yisrael,” especially northern Ephraim which was the most fertile and productive part of the land. Solomon’s cruelty and violence is masked until the end of his story in Kings. (See 1Kings chapters 11 and 12, especially verses 1Kings 11: 6, 26ff, 36, 40, 41ff, and 1Kings 12: 10, 11, 14, 18, 19, 21ff.)

Eventually, Rehoboam vows to continue the severe persecutions of his father Solomon and even to increase them. Jeroboam, who our tradition unfairly reviles, must therefore lead Ephraim, all of the Ten Northern Tribes, and secede from the union with Southern Judah and its Temple in Jerusalem. The Northern Israel must therefore build its own sanctuaries at Dan and Bethel, to cover the northern and southern limits of the vast new kingdom of Israel. Of course our story which comes from the eventually surviving Jerusalem tradition, must condemn anything the North did as illegitimate, including their two sanctuaries. The North did not actually worship the bulls at the shrines at Dan and Bethel, which were likely the footstools on which the invisible One God stood. The Canaanites had an actual image of their deity riding on the back of the bull. The Northerners, Israel, kept the bull but eliminated the pagan deity, and replaced it with the invisible God. The Southern Kingdom in Jerusalem had two composite creatures, Cherubim, whose wings appear to protect the Ark, and of course no one from the South claimed that their Cherubim were idols that were worshipped. It is likely that each Kingdom claimed the other’s sacred shrines were illegitimate and that the other could not possibly be worshipping the One God.

There are many words used to describe the cruelty of Solomon’s enslavement of the Northern tribes, among them is the Hebrew word “mas” a ‘slave tax.’ Interestingly the same word is used to describe the ‘slave tax’ imposed by the Pharaoh of the Exodus (Exodus 1:11, the Israelites are overseen and oppressed by “sarei missim” officers assigned to impose the “mas” the slave tax. In both Solomon’s and Pharaoh’s cases, “mas” slavery is not a reference to the permanent slavery of the Romans, or of the Blacks in our own South, but rather to the state’s imposition of months of harsh forced labor, a ‘slavery’ after which the ‘slaves’ would return to their homes, having suffered severely, many often dying, from the cruel taskmasters who needed to meet the quotas established by the state. The Egyptians imposed this same ‘slavery’ on their own people as well. This may explain why the Israelites would repeatedly demand that Moses let them return to Egypt, remembering the relatively good times between the periods of forced labor. To return to Egypt was for them better than dying of hunger and thirst in the wilderness.

This intermittent ‘slavery’ is also one the many issues leading to the French Revolution which they called ‘corvée’ labor.

Another example of Solomon’s cruelty is found in the story of the two women who each claimed was the mother of the surviving baby. (1Kings 3:16-28)

What I now write may be disturbing.

The story is used to emphasize Solomon’s great wisdom. When we apply a close reading, another interpretation is possible. The story makes no sense unless the two women really believed that Solomon would actually kill the baby, dividing it in half. Solomon orders the swordsman to cut the baby in half. Then one of the women stops the swordsman and she says to the King, ‘let it live, give her the baby.’ The King says ‘she is the real mother’ and gives her the child. The editor and probably the people too, even until today have endowed Solomon with great wisdom, which idea has become inviolable. Yet the premise of the the story, which has been rightly overwhelmed by our relief that the child is not put to death, and by our sympathy that one woman, whether or not she is actually the real mother, has such a powerful emotional defense for the baby’s life that she succeeds in saving the child’s life, and that she, a caring protective woman must be the real mother, and is given the child .

But, hidden in the story is the fact that it makes no sense unless there was a prevalent awareness that Solomon could actually kill the child. On this premise we assume Solomon’s great wisdom, and suppress his perceived cruelty.

Solomon’s wisdom probably comes from another possible source. The story emphasizes that Solomon sought recognition on the world stage. His marriages to foreign princesses create alliances. Every ancient people, Egyptians and Babylonians, employed groups of men whose job it was to collect the ‘wise’ sayings of their own people as well as borrowing freely from the wisdom collections of other nations. The same was true for Solomon who wanted to be regarded as one of those great nations. He too creates a Department (School) of Wisdom. Our Proverbs and Kohelet include sayings that have also been found in the collections from Egypt and Babylonia.

In sum, our own veneration, perhaps even idolization of the Jerusalem Temple is that it became symbolic of our people, our history, and our commitment to our traditions and values. We can continue that veneration in many different ways, since no group is monolithic in its agreement to specific practices of their sancta. For many of us it is not about the rebuilding of the Temple but the veneration of the site on which it once stood and its symbolism.

The biblical Public Relations offices that gave us the official stories found in the books of Samuel and Kings, successfully intended to slant their views to present us with a negative view of King Saul, but positive views of Kings David and Solomon. That should tell us on whose behalf they were working. Fortunately these Spinners could not eliminate the powerfully divergent views about these same figures. Sometimes a close reading of the text allows us to ‘read between the lines’ or even clear our minds of our ingrained pictures and discover another alternate picture. Sometimes, if we read till the ends of the stories, trying to keep open minds, we can discover that some ancient editor added other stories that contradict the usual whitewashed earlier images. How these additions were able to slip by constantly amazes us. Perhaps those who read them were so brainwashed by the previous stories that they read into the additions what they wanted to find there. But these divergent pictures are there, and remain for us to read them with an open mind, and discover a new rich, more human, with all of the flaws and virtues revealed, picture of the heroes of the biblical world.

The Big Bad Wolves of the Ancient Near East Speak: Royal Apologetic in Context – The ASOR Blog

FOR THOSE IN OR AROUND NEW YORK CITYFrom the Society for the Advancement of Judaism:Hugh Baron Memorial Lecture with Rabbi Manuel GoldMonday, April 3, 2017 • 7 Nisan 57777:30 PM – 9:30 PM at the SAJ, 15 West 86th Street (just west of Central Park) This will be the the first of several annual lectures made possible through the generosity of Hugh’s family, in memory of Hugh. These lectures will present exciting discoveries and new understandings achieved by contemporary Jewish scholars but not yet known to the general or Jewish public. Our first lecturer, Rabbi Manuel Gold, is an engaging speaker and an out-of- the-box scholar who is unafraid to follow the evidence when it conflicts with received opinion. He has taught at Hebrew Union College and at the Academy for Jewish Religion, and has lectured to both academic and lay groups. His lecture will present a new and truly revolutionary view of the background and purpose of the Passover Haggadah, and the implications for us of this new understanding. It is guaranteed to give you much to talk about at your seder the following week, if you can wait that long!The lecture is free and open to the public, and will be followed by a dessert reception in the social hall. We ask you to help our planning by letting us know, below, if you will be attending and how many will be in your party. Please call 212-724-7000, to let us know you are coming. Manny Gold

The Obama/Kerry Hanukkah Gift for Israel and the Jewish People

The Obama/Kerry Hanukkah Gift to Israel and the Jewish People Manuel Gold My great respect for my friends and colleagues and their sincere concern for a peaceful two state solution, and that the se…

Source: The Obama/Kerry Hanukkah Gift for Israel and the Jewish People